Standing Committee E

[Frank Cookin the Chair]

Phil Hope: I beg to move
That—(1) during the remaining proceedings on the Education and Inspections Bill the Standing Committee shall (in addition to its meeting at 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday 9th May) meet—
(a) at 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 9th May;
(b) at 4.00 p.m. on Wednesday 10th May;
(c) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 11th May;
(2) the remaining proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table;
(3) the remaining proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table.

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings
Clauses 42 and 43; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to school admissions; Clause 44; Schedule 5; Clause 45; remaining new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 3; Clauses 46 to 57; Schedule 6; Clause 58; Schedule 7; Clauses 59 and 60; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to part 4.
1.00 p.m. on Tuesday 9th May.
Clauses 61 and 62; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 5; Clauses 63 and 64; Schedule 8; Clause 65; Schedule 9; Clauses 66 to 72; Schedule 10; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to travel to schools and other places where education or training is received.
9.55 p.m. on Tuesday 9th May.
Clauses 73 and 74; remaining new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 6; Clauses 75 to 83.
8.00 p.m. on Wednesday 10th May.
Clauses 84 to 97; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 7.
10.25 a.m. on Thursday 11th May.
Clauses 98 to 101; Schedules 11 and 12; Clauses 102 to 135; Schedule 13; Clauses 136 to 142; Schedule 14; Clause 143; Schedule 15; Clause 144; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 8; Clauses 145 and 146; Schedule 16; Clauses 147 to 151; Schedule 17; Clauses 152 and 153; remaining new Clauses; remaining new Schedules; Clauses 154 to 160; Schedule 18; Clauses 161 to 167; remaining proceedings on the Bill.
4.00 p.m. on Thursday 11th May.
It is a pleasure to be back under your stewardship, Mr. Cook. I hope that this programme motion will help us to ensure proper and full scrutiny of the remaining clauses of the Bill. It gives us an extra nine hours of scrutiny. At the start of the Committee proceedings I welcomed my right hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), the former Minister for Schools, who is now the Secretary to the Treasury. I praised her talents as captain and top goal scorer for the Labour team on this Committee. I am pleased to say that her talents have been recognised by the manager, who has quite rightly promoted her from the championship to the premier league. I should like to take the opportunity to record my thanks and those of the entire Committee for her superb contribution to our deliberations to date.
Before welcoming my right hon. Friend’s replacement to these Benches, I want to acknowledge another member of the team whose talents have also been rightfully recognised. Owing to an injury tomy hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole(Mr. Cawsey), my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) played as a good substitute last week. He has now been promoted to be a full-time, paid player on the Front Bench.
You may have wondered, Mr. Cook, how our team would cope with the promotion of two of our key players. Where would we find a replacement with the required intellect, charm, experience, knowledge and eloquence? Failing to find such a person, but following his dazzling performance in the conference league of rural policy in DEFRA, I am delighted to welcome to the Committee my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight). He has been justly rewarded with the captaincy of our team. Finally—I like to offer little-known facts about members of the Committee—I point out that my hon. Friend is a keen tennis player. Like me, he is member of the Lords and Commons tennis club. We have played doubles together. I look forward on this occasion to being Tim Henman to his Andy Murray.

Nick Gibb: It is a pleasure to welcome the Minister for Schools, the hon. Member for South Dorset, to the Committee and to congratulate him on his promotion. I have always admired his principled stance on issues such as the Iraqi war. His promotion would be well deserved on that basis alone. I am sure that he will enjoy the Department for Education and Skills just as much as he enjoyed being at DEFRA, if not more so.
Congratulations are also due to the right hon. Member for Redditch. It is unfortunate, but nevertheless true that all the people I have shadowed over the years have been promoted. I think the contrast with me makes them look good. The problem is that after about a year in their new posts people realise that they were over-promoted and they are sacked. I believe that the right hon. Lady will be the exception that proves the rule. She is a very capable and accomplished Minister and it has been a pleasure working with her over the last year. I am sure that she will do very well in her new role as Chief Whip.
I should like to say a few words about the motion before us. It is uncontroversial. After 14 long sittings we are still only a quarter of the way through the Bill. We are now at clause 42 out of 167 clauses and 18 schedules. This is an important as well as a substantial Bill. So far some 563 amendments have been tabled. Admittedly a large number of those are Conservative amendments, but there are a number of Liberal amendments, some Government amendments and many tabled by the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), who has also made sure that we are fully conversant with the arguments behind them.
Considering the importance of some of the issues under discussion, I do not think that there have been any unnecessary or unduly long debates. The Bill has 10 parts, which vary enormously from issues relating to the duty of education authorities to provide a diverse system to those of choice and arrangements for a new trust school or a competition for a new school. It covers the abolition of school organisation committees, the vexed issue of school admissions—that is always controversial when there is a shortage of good school places—and new powers to close bad schools more quickly. There are parts on the school curriculum and entitlements to study certain subjects; the incorporation of the earlier School Transport Bill into this Bill; school meals; and school discipline. The latter incorporates the recommendations of the Steer committee. Finally, there are provisions on parenting orders and 47 clauses relating to the inspection regime and the merging of a number of child-related inspection bodies under the “Every Child Matters” agenda.
It was therefore not unexpected that the programme motion, which we voted against on Second Reading, would not be adequate to ensure that all the components of the Bill received the necessary scrutiny. We are as keen as the Government to ensure the smooth passage of the Bill to the statute book in a timely manner. That is why we will not oppose the motion, and we hope that we make good progress over the next three days.

Sarah Teather: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Redditch on her promotion, which I suspect is long overdue. I am a relatively junior Front-Bench spokesperson, but she is one of the most talented Ministers I have worked with, even if I have disagreed thoroughly with almost everything that she has said. I congratulate her wholeheartedly.
I welcome the Minister for Schools, the hon. Member for South Dorset, to his new role. I have great sympathy with him for the busy weekend that I suspect he has had, because I was reshuffled just a week before Second Reading and I know that this is a big Bill to get to grips with in a short time. The right hon. Member for Redditch is a tough act to follow, but I am sure that he will do very well.
We, too, voted against the programme motion on Second Reading, because we suspected that the time allowed in Committee would not be adequate to scrutinise the Bill. We will nevertheless support this motion and do our best to be as brief as possible, as we have at all times, to ensure that we can complete our deliberations by Thursday as required.

Jim Knight: May I say what a pleasure it will be to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Cook? I shall briefly respond to the kind words that have been said. I emphasise “briefly” because I am mindful that we are discussing programming and the need to get on with things.
This is my first opportunity as the new Minister for Schools to say how pleased and honoured I am to take on the role. At the heart of it is the aim to raise standards in our schools and ensure that we personalise and individualise the service to make it better for every child, building on this Government’s excellent record.
It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Redditch. As everyone has said, she is a tough act to follow. She has done an excellent job. We are yet to debate the clauses on discipline, but I am sure that her understanding of the matter will be used well in her new role. I look forward to working with my doubles partner, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope), and to serving on a Committee with such a wealth of expertise. My reading over the weekend, to which the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather), referred, taught me that there was such experience and expertise, which is daunting.
This is the third Standing Committee on which I have been the Minister during this Parliament. I hope that my experience of rights of way and, most recently, common land law, will be used to the full. In the Commons Bill we are repealing legislation that goes back to 1285. I do not think that we go back quite so far in this case, but I will be mindful of the historic nature of the Bill and the difference that it will make to every child in this country.

Question put and agreed to.

Nadine Dorries: On a point of order, Mr. Cook. I beg your indulgence in making a point of order at the start of our discussions. During our last sitting, on Tuesday, the then Minister for Schools may unintentionally have misled the Committee. As recorded in Hansard, when the Minister was asked whether city academies had a responsibility to take children with special educational needs, she answered,
“yes they do have to.”—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 2 May 2006; c. 638.]
In fact, city academies do not have to take children with special educational needs. They have the right to refuse to take such a child; a parent does not have the right to name an academy and neither does the local education authority.
The DFES sent a letter to all chief education officers on 15 November which stated that where the academy is of the opinion that
“the child’s attendance at the school would be incompatible with the efficient education of the other children”
there are no reasonable steps that could be taken to prevent that incompatibility, and consequently it does not consent to its being named in the child’s statement, the local authority should not name the academy. That is because academies have the right to say no to any child with special needs. Therefore, the Minister’s answer to the question should have been “No.” City academies do operate selection; they need to take only those children with special educational needs whom they choose to take.

Frank Cook: That is not a point of order for me. It is a point of debate and argument and I have allowed the hon. Lady to put it on the record.

Jim Knight: Further to that point of order,Mr. Cook. I will write to the Committee setting out the situation in full; the effect is the same. My noble Friend Lord Adonis wrote to the Chairman of the Select Committee in March stating clearly that
“if an Academy were to refuse to admit a child following a SENDIST decision and seek support from the Secretary of State for their position, I think it highly unlikely that there would be circumstances where it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to do otherwise than direct the Academy to admit the child.”
I will give the Committee statistics that show that3.3 per cent. of pupils attending academies have statements of special educational needs compared to 2.3 per cent. nationally and that 27.5 per cent. of pupils attending academies are identified as having special educational needs but no statement, compared with 14.3 per cent. of pupils attending maintained secondary schools.

Frank Cook: I am grateful for that enlightenment.

Nadine Dorries: On a point of order, Mr. Cook.

Frank Cook: No. There will not be additional debates on matters we have already discussed.

Clause 42

Objections to admission arrangements

Amendment proposed [2 May]: No. 92, in clause 42, page 31, line 26, at end insert—
‘(1A) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) Where an objection is made under subsection (2), the person making the objection to the adjudicator (the “objector”) must provide a detailed meritorious case for his decision, setting out why the specific admission arrangement to which he objects damages his school or, in the case of a local education authority, other schools within the authority area, and providing substantive evidence to support his case.
(2B) If the objector fails to provide the detailed meritorious case and evidence required in subsection (2A) the adjudicator shall not hear the objection.
(2C) If, in the reasonable opinion of the adjudicator an objection by an objector is unreasonable, vexatious, frivolous or otherwise unmeritorious, he shall not hear the objection.
(2D) Where an objector has made objection on the same grounds at any time in the previous three years, the adjudicator shall not hear the objection.”.'.—[Mr. Hayes.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Frank Cook: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following: Amendment No. 216, in clause 42, page 31, line 26, at end insert—
‘(1A) In subsection (2) leave out paragraph (c).'.
Amendment No. 52, in clause 42, page 31, line 27, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment No. 54, in clause 42, page 31, line 31, leave out from ‘made' to end of line 32.
Amendment No. 55, in clause 42, page 31, line 39, leave out from ‘arrangements' to ‘and' in line 40.
Amendment No. 53, in clause 42, page 31, line 46, at end insert
‘, provided those modifications are in line with the character and ethos of the school.'.
Amendment No. 57, in clause 42, page 31, line 46, at end insert—
‘(5D) Where the adjudicator makes a decision in relation to the admission arrangements of an admission authority, the admission authority may appeal to the Secretary of State.
(5E) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision in relation to appeals under this section, including provision—
(a) as to the time by which an appeal is to be made,
(b) as to the manner in which an appeal is to be made,
(c) as to the procedure to be followed in connection with an appeal, and
(d) as to the matters to be taken into account in deciding whether to allow an appeal.'.
Amendment No. 93, in clause 42, page 32, line 22, leave out subsection (6).
Clause stand part.
New clause 11—Abolition of adjudicator—
‘(1) The office of adjudicator is hereby abolished.
(2) Section 90 of SSFA 1998 shall cease to have effect.'.

John Hayes: In our last debate, before the new Minister joined this happy breed, we were discussing amendment No. 92. I, too, welcome the Minister and hope that he has an exciting time here. He must not expect the mundane or prosaic; the Committee has ranged widely and considered matters with the appropriate seriousness, which it will apply to this amendment.
To reprise the argument briefly, our case is that complaints should not be vexatious and should have merit. In that spirit, the objector should be obliged to explain fully a detailed case and the adjudicator should have the right to dismiss cases when it is not clear why the objector believes—

Edward Leigh: Why do we need an adjudicator?

John Hayes: You will not let me range too widely on the point, Mr. Cook, because I am responding to what the previous Minister said, but there is an argument that the Bill goes a very long way towards increasing the scope and powers of the adjudicator. Indeed, adjudicators will need to be wise people to deal with all the extra things that they have to do as a result of the Bill. The new Minister may want to focus on that for a moment. However, I do not wish to stray from proper consideration of what the previous Minister said about the amendment. The new Minister will have read that his predecessor acknowledged that there was no desire to encourage vexatious complaints, which is precisely why we believe that they should be covered in the Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will intervene on me to give some feel for the number of complaints currently heard, the percentage that is agreed, and whether adjudicators believe that they are vexatious. The Minister obviously does not want to intervene, but no doubt he will come back to us on those matters.
I was not entirely convinced by the previous Minister’s argument that omitting such provisions from the Bill would not lead to a trend of unacceptable objections. This Minister no doubt appreciates that people make their case based on particular personal reasons—we have all had that in our constituencies. A parent, or even a group of parents, may be unhappy with the arrangements at a school, but their case is not always based on a clear, empirical argument; sometimes it is based on all kinds of other things, and it would not be right to go down the road of clogging the system with unnecessary objections.
That was the case made by the Opposition, and the previous Minister replied. At the outset I said that the amendment was a probing one. For that reason, and also so as not to introduce an unnecessary note of contumely early in the new Minister’s career, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Edward Leigh: rose—

Frank Cook: Order. Clause stand part was debated along with other amendments.

Edward Leigh: I do not understand.

Frank Cook: Let me explain in words of one syllable. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the selection list of amendments, he will see that clause stand part was debated along with a string of amendments and with proposed new clause 11.

Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43

Pupil banding

David Chaytor: I beg to move amendment No. 450, in clause 43, page 32, leave out line 27.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 451, in clause 43, page 33, line 1, after ‘that', insert
‘a balanced intake of pupils is achieved, that is'.
No. 94, in clause 43, page 33, line 8, at end insert ‘(1) or'.
No. 217, in clause 43, page 33, line 9, at end insert—
‘(2B) If the admission authority for a maintained school in England is the governing body, the governing body may only make such provision for selection by ability as is mentioned in subsection (1A) with the consent of the local education authority.'.
No. 452, in clause 43, page 33, line 10, leave out from ‘(3),' to end and insert
‘for “subsection (1)” substitute “subsections (1) or (1A)” and add at the end of the subsection “, in Wales or section 17 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 in England”.'.

David Chaytor: I want to speak briefly to amendments Nos. 450, 451, 217 and 452—I am conscious of the time pressure, but the clause is an important one. Amendments Nos. 450 and 452 are essentially technical amendments that would clarify the operation of banding arrangements in England and Wales. They are so technical that I am not sure I can explain precisely how they would clarify the arrangements, but my assistant assures me that they will, and it would be helpful if the Minister could say whether and how he envisages arrangements will vary between England and Wales.
Amendment No. 451 calls for specific reference to the importance of balanced intakes as a definition of the purpose of banding, and amendment No. 217 would require the local authority to agree any new banding arrangements. The advantage of clause 43 is that it builds on the current banding arrangements in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, which permit schools to band from within the group of pupils making applications to the school. It has generally been agreed that that is a very restrictive form of banding, because the group is self-selecting. Certain schools have an intake or applicant group of exceptionally high ability, and therefore banding within that high-ability level does not necessarily give a broad distribution of pupils, because of the self-selective nature of the intake.
In clause 43 we have three new forms of banding, two of which will be generally welcome. I have some queries about one of them. First, schools will now be able to band in accordance with the national average distribution of ability. Secondly, they will be able to band in accordance with the distribution of ability within the local authority in which they are situated. Thirdly, they will be able to band in accordance with the distribution of ability of the applicants to their own school and one other school. It remains to be seen why it is only one other school and what the implications will be for the nature of the intake of the school that chooses to band.

John Hayes: As I understand the hon. Gentleman’s amendment and argument, he is suggesting that banding should be effectively separated from applications. That would perhaps lead to the circumstance where the admission rate for a school bears no relation to the choice of local people about that school. Is that possible in practical terms?

David Chaytor: It is in the nature of banding that it implies some limitations on the exercise of pure parental choice. It goes without saying.

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman misses my first point. The banding arrangements in the clause, which he describes as better than the 1998 Act, link banding to applications, so the school is making a judgment about applicants and people who have already expressed a choice. What the hon. Gentleman is describing, as I understand it, is banding that is dissociated from such choice. That might lead to an extraordinary situation in which a school was obliged to band before it knew who wanted to go to the school, and it might not be able to draw people from the relevant bands if they did not exercise the choice that the school hoped they would.

David Chaytor: I think that I understand the point now, but it relates to the provisions in clause 43. Under the arrangements that I am describing the situation that the hon. Gentleman described would not arise because banding would be used only as an over-subscription criterion, so pupils would already have made their application to the school before the banding arrangements were brought into play. I do not think that his point is valid for that reason.
The issues to which I wish to draw attention are as follows, starting with amendment No. 217. If a number of schools within a local authority area are allowed to band according to any of the three criteria or methods in clause 43, together with the method that still applies in the 1998 Act—that is, banding from within the pupils applying to the school—there is inevitably the possibility of a large number of schools within the same local authority area choosing different banding systems. I question whether this is going to lead to efficiency in the administration of admissions or to a multiplicity of different tests being taken by pupils. It is a legitimate criticism of our system already that pupils here are tested to a far greater extent than those in many other countries. The banding arrangements described here would be likely to result in even more tests being taken by children as part of the process of primary to secondary transfer.

Nadine Dorries: I wonder what thoughts the hon. Gentleman hasabout children with special educational needs and whether he thinksthat banding should apply to them also.

David Chaytor: I see no reason why it should not. The bandingwould apply to all children.

Nadine Dorries: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that once academiesthat use the fair banding system have completed their allocation ofchildren with special educational needs by selecting the ones that theywant to take, no more children with special needs can go there? The banding allocation has been fulfilled. That means that theremainder of the community of maintained schools has to take far morechildren with special needs than thoseacademies.

David Chaytor: I think that that is a question for the Ministerto answer. His earlier reply on the proportion of children with SEN,with or without statements, and the proportion who get free schoolmeals, probably answers the hon. Lady’squestion.
There areproblems inherent in the clause. It raises the prospect of a largenumber of schools within a local authority area choosing differentmethods of banding. That would mean children who wish to apply to anumber of schools having to take several different tests.
Neither the clause, the Billnor the skeletal code of school admissions specifies the number ofbands considered to be best practice. I know that the Specialist Schoolsand Academies Trust has either made a statement or distributed acircular to its member schools suggesting that a 10-band system wouldbe the preferred model. That would gain a general consensus amongschools interested in banding, but it is not made clear in the clause.The option is therefore open to schools to adopt a five-band orthree-band system. The arrangements are inclined to lead to greatercomplexity, administrative confusion and an increase in the number oftests that children transferring from primary to secondary schools willhave to take. Many Labour Members would strongly encourage bandingsystems as a means of getting a fairer distribution of intake, butlocal authorities should approve banding systems and have a role inco-ordinating them to iron out the potential administrativeinefficiencies.
AmendmentNo. 451 demands a “balanced intake” of pupils. It isimportant to clarify the nature of intakes. As defined in the clause,banding refers simply to ability, not to other means by which a broadand balanced intake can be achieved. It does not refer to a genderbalance, so it is possible that a school could operate a banding systemand still have gross inequality between boys and girls. That wouldobviously depend on the availability of single-sex education elsewherein the neighbourhood, but it is a possibility. Slightly moreworryingly, a school could operate a banding system and still havegross inequality and a lack of balance in the proportion of childrenfrom different religious or ethnic groups. The concept of balancedintake needs to be put into the Bill, to demonstrate the objective thatthe Government seem to be moving towards: a fairer distribution ofpupils in our schools, not just in terms of academic ability but interms of a wider social mix and a gender, religious and ethnicbalance.

James Clappison: The hon. Gentleman hasput his arguments clearly. He has moved on quickly from banding byability to admission according to other criteria. How does he proposeto overcome the difficulties that might arise in an area where there isa preponderance of people of one religion or ethnicminority?

David Chaytor: The answer to that question is contained withinthe skeletal code of school admissions. It continuously stresses the importance of admissionsauthorities using the admissions process to avoid the worst excesses ofsocial and ethnic segregation. The hon. Gentleman and other members ofthe Committee will know that that is not an easy matter. He will alsobe aware of the enormous dangers if we, by default, allow ouradmissions system to make our schools increasingly segregated alongreligious and ethnic lines. I cannot give him an answer. My amendmentsimply flags up the importance of ensuring that our schooling systemavoids becoming more and more segregated. We all know the dangers towhich that canlead.

Nick Gibb: Amendment No. 94 looks like a technical draftingpoint, but it seeks to make an important point on the power of a localauthority, as the admission authority for a maintained school, over thequestion of whether a school adopts a banding arrangement. Clause43(1)(b), which inserts proposed new subsection (1A) into the SchoolsStandards and Framework Act 1998, sets out the three types of bandingthat a school can adopt. Those are based on the ability range of theapplicants, the current type of ability selection permitted by law, orthe two new ones: the ability range of the local authority area and theability range across the age group in England as a whole.
Clause 43(1)(d) insertsproposed new subsection (2A) into section 101 of the 1998 Act. It saysthat where local authorities are the admission authority, the authoritycan introduce banding only if the school’s governing bodyagrees. It seems that the requirement applies only to the arrangementsin proposed new subsection (1A) and not to arrangements on the statutebook in section 101. The purpose of the amendment is to maintain thatsafeguard for the section as a whole so that all three types of bandingarrangement will require the authority of the governing body and cannottherefore be imposed on a school by the localauthority.
I suspectthat the amendment may not be necessary, but I want to put on therecord how important it is to ensure that local authorities cannotimpose a banding arrangement of any sort on a school without theexpress approval of the governing body. On banding in general, theGovernment should tread that route with extreme caution. It is born outof the left’s obsession with the intake of a school and thenotion that the quality of a school is determined by its intake ratherthan by the quality of its teaching and leadership.
Results will in part bedetermined by the intake, but whether children achieve their fullpotential and emerge from the school as fully educated as their abilityallows will depend absolutely on the quality of the teaching, the headteacher and the ethos of the school. Most parents simply want to beable to send their children to the local school and they want the localschool to be good. That aim should be the objective of policy and notsome complex form of bussing arrangements, where a bright child isdenied access to her local school because the quota for her abilityrange has already been filled, forcing her to spend an hour or more aday travelling travel across town, away from her friends, to anotherschool that is short on her ability group.
That bears all the hallmarks ofthe worst social engineering experiments of the 1960s and ’70s,which is presumably why it is so popular with Lord Hattersley. He wrotein The Guardian on 10 October2005:
“The ideaof ‘banding’ was pioneered by the ILEA... At thetime it was derided as a futile socialist attempt to make non-selectivesecondary schools work. The new scheme goes far further than anythingthat the London Labour party ever dared tosuggest.”
He went on tosay:
“A‘banding’ system diminishes prospects of parentalchoice.”
According to theregulatory impact assessment, since 1999 just 15 secondary schools havepublished proposals to introduce banding, 13 of which were approved,with two rejected. I hope that we shall not see many more schools goingdown that route, and that head teachers will focus on raising standardswithin their schools rather than concern themselves with intake andsocialengineering.

Sarah Teather: I have some sympathy with the view that there arecertain situations in which social segregation is so considerable andunhealthy that action needs to be taken to break it down. However, I amuneasy with the concept of banding and with the idea of moving childrenover wide distances, often away from their community. I am far moresympathetic to the idea of lotteries. I am happy for local authoritiesto have freedom to experiment with different methods and to see howthey work, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that if we are to usebanding, it needs to be used across a wide area. If schools are allowedto use banding in small areas, middle-class schools could easily removethe ability of other schools to join in the system, and socialsegregation could beworsened.

Nadine Dorries: I want to refer to the effects of banding onchildren’s special educational needs, and I shall quote somefigures from schools that operate a banding policy. Obviously, they arecity academies, and the effect of the banding policy on children withspecial needs is that such children have to travel out of the boroughto receive their education. In Southwark, the academy at Peckham takeschildren with special needs at a level of 28.7 per cent.—aboveits banding requirement of 18 per cent—but the local maintainedschool, Kingsdale secondary, takes 65.6 per cent. and Bacon’scollege takes 33.87 per cent. So the maintained schools take far morechildren with special needs than academies, and I could list academyafter academy—though I am sure you do not want me to,Mr. Cook—for which the figures stack up the same. That isbecause of the banding system. Academies do not have to take childrenwith special educational needs. When they do, and once their quota isfilled, the children have to travel further. From the point of view ofsuch children, I oppose banding. They suffer more than mosteducationally, and banding would make thatworse.
Schools shouldreflect the community in which they are based, and not be sociallyengineered to look the way a political party wants them to look. TheConservative Administration did things wrong with education, as I amsure that this Government are doing now and as every Government will infuture, but we should plan education on a long-term basis, rather than on the basis of short-term ideology. We should think about how itwill look in 20 or 40 years’ time for the children of thefuture. Banding will make things worse for children with specialeducationalneeds.

James Clappison: We all recognise that the issue is difficult,and I recognise the care and thought that the hon. Member for Bury,North has given to it, but I agree strongly with the reservationsexpressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis andLittlehampton (Mr. Gibb). Applying banding too rigidly and putting toomuch emphasis on it carries real dangers for parents and children. Twoexamples spring to mind. First, there is the danger of thinking thatthe only way to improve a school is to change its intake, as the hon.Gentleman implied, rather than examine the quality of leadership andteaching, the school’s ethos and everything else that makes agood school. There is a danger that rigid, mechanistic application ofbanding doctrines causes those steps to beoverlooked.
I paytribute Wroxham primary school in my constituency, which I visitedrecently. Not that long ago, and with exactly the same intake, it wasmoving in the wrong direction, but with different leadership anddifferent teaching it has achieved excellent results which are nearlythe best in Hertfordshire. It has, I understand, had advisers from No.10 beating a path to it to see what can be done to turn a schoolaround. As I said, that was with no change whatever to thatschool’s intake. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides ofthe House know of similar examples. If the first thing we looked at wasa school’s intake, we would not draw lessons from it, so we needto consider other things first.
The second problem with bandingthat springs to mind—in particular the wider from of bandingadvocated by the hon. Gentleman, which is not just banding by abilitybut according to religion, membership of ethnic groups and otherfactors—is that parents simply will not go along with it. Theywill go to ever more elaborate and extreme measures to avoid therigidities of banding being imposed on them. They have gone to theextent of moving to different areas and taking the extreme step ofeither they or their children having to travel substantial distances togo to school. That is simply not the way to get parents into schools.The way to attract parents to schools is to provide good schools withgood teaching and good leadership. That is what parents are lookingfor, and that is what will get them beating a path to the door of theschool.
There areadditional dangers from the social segregation that the hon. Gentlemanadvocates. It could in some cases lead to even more movement away fromurban centres to more development in the countryside. It is a dangerouspath to go down, and is too rigid an approach. It could be entirelycounter-productive and have the opposite result of what is planned. Ihave a distaste for social engineering, and would much rather providepeople with opportunities and good services in the firstplace.

Jim Knight: In responding to these interesting amendments, Ihope that it will help if I make a few initial comments about theclause as a whole, to put it into context.
Clause 43 enacts our WhitePaper commitment to make pupil banding easier to implement and to giveadmission authorities the flexibility to adopt the most appropriate form of banding for their circumstances. To right a misunderstandingthat has been referred to in Lord Hattersley’s article, bandingis by no means going to be compulsory. The provision enables individualschools to band, or provides for two or more schools to adopt jointbanding arrangements. In addition, it enables them to band and securean intake that is representative of the range of abilities of allapplicants to the school, or an intake that reflects the local area orthe national ability profile. Provision in the 1998 Act already permitsadmission authorities for schools to introduce banding of the firstkind that I referred to, and we are looking to extend that.
Amendment No. 94 proposes thatwhere the admission authority for a school is a local authority, itshould be required to consult governing bodies before introducingbanding to admission arrangements. However, local authorities mustalready consult the governing bodies of community and voluntarycontrolled schools before making any changes to a school’sadmission arrangements. So, if the local authority wishes to introducebanding on the basis of applications made for an individual schoolalone, it would, under current legislation, have to consult thatschool’s governing body. We therefore believe that the amendmentisunnecessary.

Edward Leigh: I know of two comprehensive schools in inner west London that are very similar. One uses banding and the other does not. There is at least a suspicion that the school that uses banding may do so to increase the academic excellence of pupils entering the school, because it can work out how clever its pupils are before it offers them a place. There is at least the risk that banding can be criticised not just because of social engineering, but because it makes schools less comprehensive.

Jim Knight: We have certainly been mindful of that risk, which is why we are seeking to introduce fair banding, so that it reflects the whole ability range. We have set out elsewhere in the Bill that there will be no new selection by ability. Once the ability assessment has been made for banding, schools cannot then cream off the best scores of ability within each band. They will have to take evenly, according to the criteria within each band which are set out in the legislation. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.

Sarah Teather: On a point of clarification, after the assessment process, will young people and families know what band they fall into? Will they be given that information or will it be confidential? If it is intended to be confidential how do we ensure that families do not find out that information?

Jim Knight: I understand that the information is not disclosed but I will reflect on the hon. Lady’s point in respect of whether safeguards are needed. The substantive point is that the information is not disclosed.

Nadine Dorries: Does the Minister agree that under the banding system he described, schools will turn into a sort of McDonald’s of education? All schools will perform the same because they will have the same social, academic and special needs intake. There will be a levelling out of schools’ performance throughout the UK. Will not the schools all look the same?

Jim Knight: I suggest that the hon. Lady visits Greenwich or Lewisham, which are not far from here, where there is banding across the borough, and she will see that there is diversity in the schools. We are offering more flexible banding arrangements to improve choice, which is a key driver in improving standards in schools. That is at the heart of the Bill. It is the opposite of what the hon. Lady might describe as the McDonald’s approach. I am not a great fan of McDonald’s in schools.

John Hayes: The Minister gives two suburban examples of Greenwich and Lewisham, both of which I know extremely well as I was brought up in south-east London. What about an area that is less densely populated? Would that mean bussing children over a wide area in order to achieve the mix that has been described, particularly with the addition of the two extra kinds of banding proposed in the Bill?

Jim Knight: I was born in south-east London but, like the hon. Gentleman, I represent a largely rural constituency and I have asked the same question myself. The reassurance I had, which is logical, is that banding is not compulsory; for example, it would be inappropriate if a school was on an island, as is the case with a school in my constituency. We are considering situations in which schools are over-subscribed, and ensuring, through local determination, that the arrangements are appropriate for such schools. If I am allowed to continue with my comments, I will set out how the structure might work to bring that about.
Although the adoption of the existing form of banding has proved uncontroversial, it is appropriate for governing bodies to have a say in the adoption of new forms of banding, especially as it may alter the profile of the school’s intake and effectively widen its catchment area.

Nick Gibb: I was slightly concerned about the Minister’s statement that the local authority, as an admission authority, would consult a governing body rather than the governing body having to approve a system of banding, as I thought was the case with the first type of banding. Can the Minister assure me that the governing body will have to approve any system of banding proposed by the local authority and that it is not just a consultation process which can then be overruled?

Jim Knight: As I shall go on to describe, the use of the admission forum is crucial. The admission forum will produce an annual report; there will be a consultation process and there is the right of appeal to the schools adjudicator. That provides the safeguards that the hon. Gentleman wants. I shall try to sketch it out a little further as we go on.
I turn now to the helpful amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North. Amendment No. 217 proposes that governing bodies which are their own admission authority—foundation and voluntary aided schools—should have to ask the local authority’s consent before introducing banding. Of course, they should have to consult; they are already required to when considering any change to admission arrangements. We shall make that clear, but we do not agree that a local authority should have a veto on whether schools introduce banding.
I cannot see why the introduction of something that will ensure a more comprehensive intake into voluntary aided or foundation schools would be considered undesirable by the local authority, so that it would need that local authority’s consent. However, as the introduction of banding will come within the annual admissions consultation process that I have just described, local authorities, other schools and the local admission forum will all have the right to lodge an objection with the adjudicator if they disagree with the adoption of banding or with how the admission authority intends to operate it. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that his amendment is unnecessary.
I turn to amendments Nos. 450 and 452. In response to my hon. Friend’s opening comment, I should say that the provisions would make no change to the position in Wales; they apply only to England. The amendments would result in our having to retain the existing position in England—any admission authority wishing to introduce banding has to do so through the formal statutory proposal process.
Statutory proposals must be published when local authorities and governing bodies propose to open, close or expand a school, but we do not think it appropriate to continue to require them to go through that route to introduce banding. As banding constitutes an integral part of a school’s admission arrangements, approval of its introduction sits better within the existing admissions process, which I have described. That gives all schools and local authorities an opportunity to make comments and go to a schools adjudicator if they disagree. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend that the admissions consultation process, like that for statutory proposals, offers plenty of opportunity to discuss and comment on proposals to introduce banding, as well as the right of objection. 
Finally, amendment No. 451 would ensure that all banded intakes were “balanced”. I assume that my hon. Friend’s intention is to ensure that no ability group is over-represented in a school that bands its intake. That is unnecessary because the clause already ensures that the intake of a banding school is balanced in that it represents all levels of ability across applicant children, the local authority area or the ability range nationally.
However, my hon. Friend may intend to ensure that a banding school achieves a balanced intake from among its applicant children. It is important that we should allow schools the flexibility to band across the profiles that I have described, as well as across the ability profiles of applicants. That will, for instance, encourage schools situated in areas of traditionally high academic attainment to send a positive message: that they are there also to serve less able pupils, who might not gain entry if the school simply banded across the ability range of local residents.
However, there is a problem with adding the word “balanced” to that part of the clause. The word would be open to interpretation, which could lead to a conflict of interpretation with other provisions in the clause that require the pupils admitted to be representative of all ability levels.
If it were not disallowed by another part of the clause, a school with five bands could, for instance, achieve a “balanced” intake by admitting a very small minority of its pupils from the highest and lowest ability bands and the bulk of its pupils from the middle range. That would ensure that it did not have to take many pupils of below-average ability, provided that it did not take many pupils from the highest ability group. We want to see an even—I shall not use the word “balanced”—distribution across the ability range. We seek to ensure that schools achieve such an intake by taking abilities across all bands. The amendment could also lead to conflicts of interpretation within the clause, as I have said. I hope that, on that basis, my hon. Friend will not press the amendment.
In response to a couple of other points made, I should say that we will set out in the code that it is good practice for local authorities and admission authorities to choose similar approaches, such as a common test, to banding and testing. The admission forum will consider and facilitate that.

John Hayes: The Minister just said that he will state in guidance that local authorities should adopt a similar practice on banding, but in reply to my earlier intervention he made it clear that he shared my concern that if a similar approach were adopted in rural areas, it would lead to the bussing of children across very wide areas. That seems to be a contradiction.

Jim Knight: I think that the hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood me. I was referring to the testing arrangement, on which we will seek guidance so that there is some conformity. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North was concerned about the effect of having a multiplicity of approaches.
On the matter raised by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, a governing body would have to approve new forms of banding. It would be consulted on existing, norm-based banding and could object to the adjudicator.
I hope that I have responded to all the points made in the debate and that, on that basis, hon. Members will not press their amendments.

Nick Gibb: I listened very carefully to the Minister’s responses, and I am afraid that I am not reassured by them, particularly the last. There is a very good proposed new subsection on page 33 that says:
“If the admission authority for a maintained school in England is the local education authority, the authority may only make such provision for selection by ability as is mentioned in subsection (1A) with the consent of the governing body of the school.”
In other words, the three types of banding in proposed new section 101(1A) of the School Standards and Framework Act will require the authority of the governing body.
My concern, which the Minister has confirmed and which led to me to table amendment No. 94, is what will be done about the admission arrangements in section 101(1) of that Act, which allow schools to select applicants from each level of ability. It appears that such banding can still be imposed on a school by a local authority, with the mere safeguard of consultation. We shall therefore press amendmentNo. 94 to a Division. The Government should seriously consider it, because it is an anomaly for existing provisions to allow such imposition to occur when the clear intention of the Bill is that the governing body should give consent.
We are concerned about the notion of banding. It is social engineering, and if allowed to proliferate in the admissions system it could lead to some horrific problems in certain areas of the country. We shall therefore also vote against clause stand part.

David Chaytor: I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification on the points raised in the debate, and particularly for his emphasis on the importance of consultation and the sharing of information. Banding is a sensitive issue, and should not be imposed on any admission authority. Nor should any authority seek to take a decision on banding in isolation.
I do not wish to reopen the debate on the importance of intake compared with other factors in school improvement, but I refer Conservative members of the Committee both to the evidence given to the Education and Skills Committee yesterday by Ofsted on the impact of a school’s intake on its overall chances of improvement and to the written evidence provided by Professor Gorard of York university, who is one of the country’s leading experts in the field. I do not wish to continue that debate, except to say that the debate on the significance of intake has well and truly been won. That is why clause 43 provides banding systems not as something to be imposed but as a useful option.
There are two crucial contradictions in the Conservatives’ arguments. On the one hand they are quick to criticise the intake of certain schools defined as comprehensive as being highly selective by mortgage, but on the other hand, when a means of alleviating that level of selection is introduced, such as banding, they oppose it. Quite frankly, they cannot have it both ways.

Nick Gibb: That point is quite easy to address. The reason we said that mortgages were becoming the new school fees is that it highlights the drastic shortage of good school places in this country. The National Audit Office says that 23 per cent. of secondary schools are underperforming—that is the problem. We raised the issue of application by mortgage and house price in order to highlight the severe shortage of good schools. Increasing the number of good school places should be the objective of every member of the Committee and of the Government.

David Chaytor: Of course, and one of the most effective means of increasing the number of good school places is to address the chronic problem of grotesque inequalities of distribution of able pupils between schools, as the clause attempts to do. However, with regard to the position taken by the Liberal Democrats, I do not understand why they oppose banding on the basis that it may result in certain children travelling further to school, when lotteries, which they support, would have the same effect.
I am not arguing that because banding is in the Bill I therefore welcome it. I do not think that anyone argues that it is a straightforward matter, and it has to be done with regard to local circumstances and with the maximum degree of consensus. The question of balanced intakes will not go away, however. Perhaps the best answer to the Opposition’s concerns is that the code contains provisions stressing that admission authorities that choose to band will not be allowed to select further by ability on the basis of the individual scores of pupils within the band. They will have to use other over-subscription criteria to select between pupils within the band.
I think that that is the key to creating a balanced intake in the broadest sense—one that has regard to the social class background of individual pupils, and to their religious affiliations and ethnic minority origins. Other forms of over-subscription criteria for selecting pupils from within each ability band would be extremely helpful in achieving a broader and more balanced intake.
On parents’ support for banding, we have to accept that it is not a new and revolutionary idea—it has a large measure of support among many schools and local authorities and it has operated in many parts of the country for many years. By and large it has a high level of support where it operates, because most parents accept and understand that a fair distribution of pupils between schools is one of the key mechanisms by which the quality of all schools can be improved and the number of good school places increased.

Nick Gibb: Is not the point that banding can often be used as a substitute for genuine improvement in the quality of a school? The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me when he says that there is an issue of how to select within a band when a school is over-subscribed within certain ability ranges. I discussed the Thomas Telford school with the hon. Gentleman and his concern was whether that school, which has fair banding based on national criteria, selects the children in the top niche of each of the nine bands of entry in order to keep up good results. So even if one were to have a universal system of fair banding, the same complaints would come from the same quarters that even that system could be manipulated to create a higher ability intake—that there is no real difference between the qualities of school and their leadership, and that it is all to do with intake. We will never win the debate on that with the left, which is why we should not go down that route in the first place.

David Chaytor: The issue of banding and the role of pupil distribution between schools is not a substitute for other means of school improvement; it is part of a package of measures for improvement. It does not substitute for quality of leadership—I have argued on many occasions in the Committee and elsewhere that quality of leadership is the key factor, but banding is another of the range of measures that can be applied.
On selection within bands, I refer to the point I made earlier about the provisions in the skeletal code which deal with selection. The skeletal code makes it clear that selection by pupils’ scores within bands will not be permitted, although other over-subscription criteria are permitted.

Jim Knight: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, as it gives me the opportunity to give some clarification on a point made by the hon. Member for Brent, East. If the tests are Qualifications and Curriculum Authority tests, parents will know the results, but if they are taken before 1 March—the date that allocations are made—the results will be known afterwards. At some point, they will be known, so that people will be able to scrutinise whether the code has been properly adhered to.

David Chaytor: That is a very helpful clarification.

Nick Gibb: I should be grateful if, through the hon. Gentleman, we could get some clarification about whether the pupils themselves will know what band they are in. That seems to be a terrible way of undermining the confidence of children who may be placed in a lower band. It goes against everything on which there is a consensus when it comes to grammar schools and selection—that we are going to tell children that they are in band nine or band one in a fair banding system. I thought that that was against the general ethos of education.

David Chaytor: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point about the whole notion of selection by ability, but let us not go into that at this stage. The answer to his question is that it is entirely a matter between parents and pupils.
I am very grateful for the Minister’s clarification and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 94, in clause 43, page 33, line 8, at end insert ‘(1) or'.—[Mr. Gibb.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 15.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 7.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 27

DIRECTION TO ADMIT LOOKED AFTER CHILD TO SPECIFIED SCHOOL
‘(1) After section 97 of SSFA 1998 insert—
“97A Direction to admit looked after child to specified school
(1) A local authority in England may, in relation to a child looked after by them, give a direction under this section to the admission authority for any school in England other than a school for which the local authority are the admission authority.
(2) A direction under this section shall not specify a school from which the child is permanently excluded.
(3) Where a school is specified in a direction under this section, the admission authority shall admit the child to the school.
(4) Subsection (3) does not affect any power to exclude from a school a pupil who is already a registered pupil there.
97B Procedure for giving direction under section 97A
(1) Before deciding to give a direction under section 97A, the local authority shall consult the admission authority for the school they propose to specify in the direction.
(2) The admission authority for the school shall, within the period of seven days beginning with the day on which they are consulted as mentioned in subsection (1), inform the local authority whether they are willing to admit the child to the school without being directed to do so by the authority.
(3) Where the local authority decide to give a direction under section 97A specifying a school—
(a) they shall, before doing so, serve a notice in writing of their decision on—
(i) the admission authority for the school,
(ii) if the school is a community or voluntary controlled school and the governing body of the school are not the admission authority, the governing body of the school,
(iii) if the school is maintained by a local education authority who are not the authority proposing to give the direction and are not the admission authority, the local education authority who maintain the school, and
(iv) the head teacher of the school, and
(b) they shall not give the direction until the period for referring the matter to the adjudicator under subsection (4) has expired and, if it is so referred, until the adjudicator has made such determinations under this section as it appears to him to be appropriate to make in connection with the reference.
(4) The following persons—
(a) the admission authority on whom a notice is served under subsection (3)(a)(i), and
(b) in the case of a notice relating to a child to whom (at the time of service of the notice) section 87(2) applies, the governing body of a community or voluntary controlled school on whom the notice is served under subsection (3)(a)(ii),
may, within the period of seven days beginning with the day on which the notice was served, refer the matter to the adjudicator and, if they do so, shall inform the local authority.
(5) A reference under subsection (4) may only be made on the ground that the admission of the child to the school would seriously prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources.
(6) If the adjudicator determines that the admission of the child to the school would have the effect mentioned in subsection (5)—
(a) the local authority may not give a direction under section 97A that the school admit the child, but
(b) the adjudicator may determine that another school in England is to be required to admit the child.
(7) A determination under subsection (6)(b) may only be made with the agreement of the local authority who look after the child.
(8) A determination under subsection (6)(b) may not be made if—
(a) the child is permanently excluded from the other school, or
(b) the admission of the child to the other school would seriously prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources.
(9) If the adjudicator determines under subsection (6)(b) that another school is to be required to admit the child, then—
(a) if the local authority referred to in subsection (1) are the admission authority for that school they shall—
(i) admit the child to the school, and
(ii) give notice in writing to the governing body and head teacher of the school of the adjudicator's decision, and
(b) in any other case, the local authority shall specify that school in their direction under section 97A.
(10) A direction under section 97A shall be given by notice in writing and a copy of the notice shall be given by the local authority to the head teacher of the school.”
(2) In section 84 of SSFA 1998, after subsection (6) (which defines terms used in Chapter 1 of Part 3 of that Act) insert—
“(7) In this Chapter, references to a child who is looked after by a local authority are to be read in accordance with section 22(1) of the Children Act 1989.”
(3) In section 89 of SSFA 1998, in subsection (1A) omit the words “(within the meaning of section 22 of the Children Act 1989)”.
(4) In section 143 of SSFA 1998 (index) after the entry relating to “child (in Chapter 1 of Part 3 but not in sections 96 and 97)” insert—
“child looked after by alocal authority (in Chapter1 of Part 3)
section 84(7)”.'.
—[Jim Knight].

Brought up, and read the First time.

Jim Knight: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 28—Procedure for giving directions under section 96 of SSFA 1998.
Government new clause 29—Directions to admit child to specified school: supplementary provisions.
Government new clause 30—Looked after children to whom section 87(2) of SSFA 1998 applies: references to adjudicator.
Government new clause 31—Provision of advice by adjudicator.
Government new clause 33—Power of assembly to make regulations about admission of looked after children.
Government amendment No. 328.
Government amendment No. 358.

Jim Knight: These amendments complement existing provision in the School Standards and Framework Act, requiring local authorities in the normal admission round to give first priority for school places to looked-after children. They follow a commitment made on Second Reading. New clause 27 amends section 97 of the 1998 Act to give local authorities the power to direct an admission authority to admit a child it is looking after to the school best suited to meet their needs when the need for a place arises at any time during the school year.
Looked-after children are among the most vulnerable in our society. As a group they tend to have low levels of educational attainment compared with their peers. Only 9 per cent. gained five good GCSEs in 2004 compared with 54 per cent of all children, and a relatively small number, just 5 per cent, go on to higher education compared with almost one third of all 19-year-olds.
We know from the social exclusion unit’s report, “A better education for children in care”, that one reason looked-after children underachieve in education is that their lives are characterised by instability and they spend too much time out of school. We also know that looked-after children move schools more often than other children as a result of frequent changes of placement. As a consequence, they are more likely to attend schools that are not equipped to meet their needs, or in some cases they are not able to obtain a school place at all.
That is why we are giving local authorities in their role as corporate parent the power to direct any admission authority for a maintained school in England to admit a looked-after child even where the school is already full. This will ensure that looked-after children are always admitted to the school that can best meet their needs.
I turn to new clause 28. Under section 97 of the 1998 Act, a governing body of a school that has been directed to admit a child by the local authority under section 96 may refer that direction to the Secretary of State, who may determine whether the school must admit the child or not. The amendment amends section 97 so that in future all such referrals will be made to the schools adjudicator in England and the National Assembly in Wales. Such referrals will be allowed only on the grounds that the admission of the child would seriously prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources. The adjudicator could agree the direction or decide that another school should admit the child having consulted that school. It is imperative that suitable school places are found for those vulnerable children as soon as possible, which is why the new clause provides a mechanism for such a speedy decision to be made about a suitable alternative school if the adjudicator overturns a direction.
New clause 29 makes some consequential amendments to section 96 of the 1998 Act to take account of the changes to the responsibilities for deciding referrals about section 96 directions. It also amends section 94 of that Act to prevent parents appealing against a direction to place a looked-after child and makes provision for regulations to be made requiring the adjudicator to consult prescribed persons before making a direction using those powers. Regulations may also require admission authorities to provide information requested by the adjudicator.
New clause 30 amends the 1998 Act to deal with looked-after children for whom section 87 of that Act applies: those children who have been excluded from two or more schools. Section 95 of the Act provides that a local authority—that is, the admission authority for a school—must allow the governing body of the school a right of appeal against its decision to admit a child who has been twice excluded. The new clause removes that requirement in the case of looked-after children and provides that the governing body may instead refer the matter to the schools adjudicator who may either uphold or overturn the direction and name another school.
New clause 31 amends section 25 of the 1998 Act, providing a general power for the Secretary of State to seek advice from the adjudicator on the admission of children to schools. This will mean that in addition to advice in relation to looked-after children the adjudicator will provide advice on matters relating to the admission of children to schools as specified by the Secretary of State. It provides for greater consistency as all referrals about directions will be considered by the adjudicator and will help to reduce the casework burden on the Department.
New clause 33 provides the National Assembly for Wales with the power to make regulations relating to the admission of looked-after children. The amendments complement the procedures in England but recognise that the Assembly should decide for Wales whether and how they should be implemented there. It is a wide-ranging regulation power giving what we think is sufficient scope for the National Assembly to decide for itself what procedures it wishes to adopt. 
As a group, looked-after children have complex needs, which is why we are committed to improving outcomes for them. The Children Act 2004 placed a specific duty on local authorities to promote the educational achievements of looked-after children. The Bill will complement that duty and ensure that looked-after children are found suitable school places as quickly as possible.
Amendment No. 328 is consequential. Amendment No. 358 adds to clause 164 and has the effect of giving the National Assembly the power to make its regulations two months following the passing of the Bill. For the reasons I have set out, I hope that that the Committee will support the amendments.

Annette Brooke: I welcome my near neighbour to his new position this morning, and hopefully for a long time to come. I welcome the new clauses even though we know that looked-after children grow up and can succeed against all the odds—there are some remarkable stories. But why should this group of young people have to fight the odds all the way through their lives? I hope that this relatively small measure will make a big difference. The statistics on the outcomes and life chances for this group of people which we, collectively, have let down over a long period are well known and do not need to be rehearsed yet again.
I have a specific question for the Minister. I had a constituency case involving adopted children. One cannot time when such children arrive in a household, and because they arrived after the closing date for applications the local school five minutes away was full and they could not get in. They were from a troubled background and needed support. Perhaps a provision is tucked away in the wording of the amendments, but would adopted children arriving in June, way after the January deadline, be able to get into a school that was classified as full with perhaps 30 in the class already? That is an important point and it is sequential to the provisions for looked-after children.
I should also like to place on the record again my special concern for the young carers of disabled parents, who need access to their nearest school. They are not quite in the same category, but they are important none the less. I hope to be able to raise awareness of the particular issues facing young carers throughout the passage of the Bill.

Frank Cook: Order. I ought to point out to the Committee that there will be a debate on young carers at a later stage in the Bill.

Annette Brooke: I shall leave my remarks at that, then, Mr. Cook.

James Clappison: I am happy to echo the Minister’s sentiments about the position of looked-after children, which for a long time has been a great disappointment within our education system. Coupled with his proposals for directing looked-after children into schools, would he go as far as to express a strong wish to see an improvement in the academic and all-round performance of looked-after children?

Jim Knight: The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) raised an interesting question about adopted children. My understanding is that they would not technically fall into the category of children looked after by the local authority. I can check that out and get back to her, and copy the information to the Committee. I heard your advice, Mr. Cook, that we will be discussing young carers at a later date.
To respond to the comment made by hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), we are certainly concerned to ensure that the educational performance of looked-after children improves. We hope that the proposed measures will go some way towards achieving that, but they are not by any means the only way in which we can do so. The whole philosophy of our educational reforms is to personalise education for every child so that all children, including looked-after children, can achieve the best possible outcome for them as individuals. I hope that on that basis that the Committee will support the amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 28

Procedure for giving directions under section 96 of SSFA 1998
‘In section 97 of SSFA 1998 (procedure for giving directions under section 96)—
(a) in subsection (2)(b)—
(i) for “the Secretary of State” (in both places where it occurs) substitute “the appropriate authority”, and
(ii) for “his determination” substitute “its determination”,
(b) in subsection (3), for “the Secretary of State” substitute “the appropriate authority”,
(c) in subsection (4)—
(i) for “the Secretary of State” substitute “the appropriate authority”,
(ii) for “if he does so” substitute “if it does so”, and
(iii) in paragraph (a)(ii) for “the Secretary of State's” substitute “the appropriate authority's”,
(d) in subsection (5) for “The Secretary of State” substitute “The appropriate authority”, and
(e) after subsection (6) insert—
“(6A) In this section, “the appropriate authority” means—
(a) in relation to a local education authority in England, the adjudicator, and
(b) in relation to a local education authority in Wales, the Assembly.” '.—[Jim Knight.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 29

Directions to admit child to specified school: supplementary provisions
‘(1) In section 94 of SSFA 1998 (appeal arrangements: general), in subsection (1)(a) after “section 96” insert “or 97A”.
(2) In section 96 of SSFA 1998 (direction to admit child to specified school)—
(a) in subsection (3) for “the Secretary of State” substitute “the appropriate authority (within the meaning of section 97)”, and
(b) in subsection (8) for “section 97” substitute “sections 97 to 97C”.
(3) After section 97B of SSFA 1998 (inserted by section (Direction to admit looked after child to specified school)) insert—
“97C Determinations under section 97 or 97B: supplemental
Regulations may make provision in relation to England—
(a) requiring the adjudicator to consult prescribed persons or persons of a prescribed description before making any determination in connection with a reference under section 97 or 97B;
(b) requiring an admission authority for a school to provide information which—
(i) falls within a prescribed description, and
(ii) is requested by the adjudicator for the purposes of any such determination.” '.—[Jim Knight.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 30

Looked after children to whom section 87(2) of SSFA 1998 applies: references to adjudicator
‘(1) In section 95 of SSFA 1998 (appeals relating to children to whom section 87(2) applies) after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) Subsection (2) does not apply in relation to a decision made by or on behalf of a local education authority in England to admit to a school a child who is looked after by a local authority in England (provision for references to the adjudicator in relation to such a decision being made by section 95A).”
(2) After that section insert—
“95A References relating to looked after children to whom section 87(2) applies
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a local education authority in England are the admission authority for a community or voluntary controlled school, and
(b) a decision is made by or on behalf of the authority to admit to the school a child who, at the time when the decision is made, is looked after by a local authority in England and to whom (at that time) section 87(2) applies.
(2) The local education authority must give notice of the decision to the governing body of the school.
(3) The governing body of the school may, within the period of seven days beginning with the day on which they are notified of the decision, refer the matter to the adjudicator.
(4) A reference under subsection (3) may only be made on the ground that the admission of the child to the school would seriously prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources.
(5) If the adjudicator determines that the admission of the child to the school would have the effect mentioned in subsection (4)—
(a) the decision to admit the child to the school shall cease to have effect, but
(b) the adjudicator may determine that another maintained school in England is to be required to admit the child.
(6) A determination under subsection (5)(b) may only be made with the agreement of the local authority who look after the child.
(7) A determination under subsection (5)(b) may not be made if—
(a) the child is permanently excluded from the other school, or
(b) the admission of the child to the other school would seriously prejudice the provision of efficient education or the efficient use of resources.
(8) If the adjudicator determines under subsection (5)(b) that another school is to be required to admit the child—
(a) the admission authority for the school shall admit the child to the school, and
(b) if the admission authority are not the governing body of the school, the admission authority shall give notice in writing to the governing body and head teacher of the school of the adjudicator's decision.
(9) Regulations may make provision—
(a) requiring the adjudicator to consult prescribed persons or persons of a prescribed description before making any determination in connection with a reference under this section;
(b) requiring an admission authority for a maintained school to provide information which—
(i) falls within a prescribed description, and
(ii) is requested by the adjudicator for the purposes of any such determination.” '.—[Jim Knight.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 31

Provision of advice by adjudicator
‘In section 25 of SSFA 1998 (adjudicators) after subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) When asked to do so by the Secretary of State, an adjudicator must give advice to the Secretary of State on such matters relating to the admission of pupils to relevant schools as the Secretary of State may specify.
(3B) The adjudicator may, for the purposes of providing such advice to the Secretary of State, request any of the following persons to provide him with such information held by them as the adjudicator may specify—
(a) the admission authority (within the meaning of Chapter 1 of Part 3) of a community, foundation or voluntary school;
(b) the proprietor of any other relevant school.
(3C) A person so requested by the adjudicator to provide information must comply with the request.
(3D) In subsections (3A) and (3B), “relevant school” means a school in England falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (f) of section 5(2) of the Education Act 2005.” '.—[Jim Knight.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 33

Power of Assembly to make regulations about admission of looked after children
‘(1) After section 97C of SSFA 1998 (inserted by section (Directions to admit child to specified school: supplementary provisions)) insert—

None

97D Power of Assembly to make regulations about admission of looked after children
(1) The Assembly may by regulations make provision about the admission of children looked after by local authorities in Wales (“looked after children”) to maintained schools in Wales.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may include provision requiring the admission authorities for such schools—
(a) to include in their admission arrangements such provision relating to the admission of looked after children as may be prescribed, which may in particular include provision for securing that, subject to prescribed exceptions, such children are to be offered admission in preference to other children;
(b) to admit looked after children in prescribed circumstances, subject to prescribed exceptions.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may provide that any of the preceding provisions of this Chapter—
(a) shall not apply in relation to looked after children;
(b) shall apply in relation to such children with prescribed modifications.”
(2) In section 89 of that Act, in subsection (1A)—
(a) after “maintained schools” insert “in England”, and
(b) after “a local authority” insert “in England”.'. —[Jim Knight.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4

Admissions administration
‘(1) Chapter 1 of Part III of SSFA 1998 (schools admissions) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 89 insert the following section—
“89A Admissions administration
(1) Admissions administration will receive all applications for places made on behalf of pupils seeking admission to maintained schools, academies, city technology colleges and city colleges for the technology of the arts within its local education authority's area.
(2) Admission administration will anonymise these applications so that the identity of individual applicants cannot be identified by the schools for which they have applied or indicated a preference.
(3) Admission administration will determine the awarding of places at maintained schools within its local education authority's area having regard to the arrangements which are to apply for that year, established by any admission authority within that area, including special arrangements provided for in section 91.
(4) The person responsible for admissions administration within a local education authority must be employed or commissioned by the local education authority.
(5) In this Chapter “admissions administration” means the person responsible for the administration of arrangements for the admissions of pupils to any school within a local education authority's area.”'.—[Sarah Teather.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sarah Teather: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
In our previous sitting, we discussed the new skeletal code for admissions and admission forums. I said that the code is in many ways a welcome advance, in that it touches on many of the points of concern relating to covert selection—for example, it highlights the fact that it is totally unacceptable to use information gleaned about a family from open evenings or other meetings with the family held because brothers or sisters are at the school in question. The right hon. Member for Redditch indicated that she would look into whether the use of telephone information could be included in the code. The problem is ensuring that the code is put into practice and enforced adequately. A challenge based on many of the code’s provisions would require a subjective judgment, given that they deal with soft information gained through informal meetings.
We know from surveys that as many as one in four head teachers admit to bending the rules in order to cherry-pick pupils, and so artificially to improve their results and league table position and appear a better school. The problem is that when one head teacher or school cheats, it breaks everybody’s trust in the system—parents and students. Such practices undermine the system and the work that the Government are trying to do by introducing the code.
It seems to us that best way to remove the danger of cheating would be to allow local authorities to administer the criteria. The new clause would not prevent schools from setting their own criteria, but if it is not accepted we shall press an amendment that would do so. The new clause suggests that if the criteria are objective, as the code says they should be, they could be administered by anybody—they do not need to be administered by the school in question. The best body to administer the process is the local authority. The local authority has no incentive to cheat. It does not favour one school in its area over another or wish artificially to inflate the league table position of one school rather than another. It is disinterested and impartial; it wishes only to raise the standards of all of the schools in its area.
That would be particularly helpful in ironing out problems such as knowledge of a family gained through brothers and sisters being at a school or through open evenings or telephone conversations. It is unreasonable to expect a school not to have knowledge, sometimes quite considerable, of a family prior to the admissions process. In our previous sitting, the hon. Member for Bury, North, highlighted the case of a Church of England school in London where there was considerable contact between parents and the school some weeks before the commencement of the admissions process. It would be entirely unreasonable to expect a school not to have knowledge of a family, and it would be difficult to test whether that knowledge was used in the admissions process.

Nick Gibb: Is the Liberal notion of localism that it should extend as far the local authority, but not to the local school?

Sarah Teather: The new clause is about accountability. The local authority is the directly elected, accountable body. On localism, we have always said that devolving power down without ensuring that the bodies that receive it are elected and accountable simply results in tyranny on a local scale and does not improve the situation.

Annette Brooke: Does my hon. Friend agree that under the new clause schools will set out their own admissions policies, which will give them freedom within the guidelines and the code, and local authorities will merely administer what schools have set out?

Sarah Teather: Precisely. As I said, if the criteria are objective, as the code clearly states that they should be, it should not matter who administers them. The new clause would not remove schools’ ability to set their own criteria; it would simply ensure that they do not bend those criteria to cherry-pick.
Under the new clause, schools or the local authority—depending on who the admission authority is—would set admissions policies in line with the code. All schools would then submit their policies to, say, a local authority officer, who would administer the admissions. That would allow a layer of scrutiny so that the local authority could see whether the admissions policies were in line with the code, although we have not explicitly included provision for that in the new clause; the matter could be considered later.
Parents would then apply to the local authority with their school preferences, and the authority would sort the applications, matching children against the school’s stated criteria. Names could be kept from schools, especially if an electronic system were used; many local authorities now use such systems. The process could therefore be entirely anonymised, with a code, tag or number attached to the application so that even the officer would not know who the families on the system were. The local authority would then send out acceptance letters to parents and inform schools of their intake. Under that system, head teachers and governors would never see the list of names, so they could not pick out families with difficult parents or the children who they know are always in trouble with the police.
The Local Government Association thinks that the new clause would improve transparency, and individual councils to which we have spoken have also been enthusiastic about the idea of improving transparency and preventing cheating. Teachers’ unions have expressed considerable concern about allowing schools more freedom to set their own admissions and say that they would favour a more co-ordinated system. That can be achieved only by making the local authority the co-ordinator.
Let me reiterate. The new clause does not remove schools’ power to set their own criteria, but prevents them from cheating. That would be a helpful amendment to the Bill, and I strongly encourage the Government to accept it.

Jim Knight: The Education Act 2002 gave local authorities responsibility for co-ordinating the annual school admissions process in England, but the process works on the basis of a balance of responsibilities between schools and local authorities, with own-admission authority schools setting and applying their own admission arrangements, and local authorities managing the flow of information on applications and potential offers and making the best offer available to parents at the end of the process.
As individual admission authorities are accountable for decisions to grant or refuse admission to their schools, we do not agree that we should transfer statutory responsibility to local authorities—despite my instinctive cultural sympathy for anything called new clause 4. Where schools admit pupils by reference to aptitude, ability or commitment to faith, it could be asking too much of local authorities to expect them to assess applicants properly against a broad spectrum of criteria. In particular, assessments of religious commitments are best made by the governing bodies of the schools concerned, using objective evidence provided by their religious leaders.

Sarah Teather: We discussed this at the previous sitting, and I very much agreed with the right hon. Member for Redditch that we should not try to assess the level of religious commitment. A letter from a priest is perfectly adequate. Why could that not be appended to an admission application so that a box could be ticked to say that the applicant agreed and met the criteria?

Jim Knight: There may be circumstances in which schools will want to come together and, if they can, work out a simple way to remove some of the bureaucracy, but I am concerned that a complex series of criteria could be involved and it would be too bureaucratic to impose the responsibility on local authorities. As I said, there may be some merit in permitting such arrangements if they are practical and as long as the local authority, the admission forum and individual admission authorities in an area are in agreement with them, but other aspects of the new clause are unworkable.
Through funding agreements, the Secretary of State requires academies to participate in co-ordination, but city technology colleges are not bound by similar arrangements.
The suggestion that applications should be anonymised is presumably based on the perception that inclusion of personal details could lead to abuse of the system or covert selection, but the Department has no evidence of such abuse, and even if there were, costs would be incurred in altering the administrative systems. There are practical reasons why the process could not be operated as effectively if forms were anonymised. Many schools use a sibling connection as one of their over-subscription criteria, but they would not be able to assess whether applicants had a sibling at the school if names were removed. Furthermore, removing names alone would not be sufficient to anonymise an applicant. Some could be disadvantaged by their address, for example, but removing that clearly would not be feasible in respect of catchment area criteria.
There are good reasons why the Government resist the new clause, although I understand the good intent behind it. I hope that the hon. Lady will agree to withdraw it.

Sarah Teather: I am extremely disappointed that the Government are not willing to accept the new clause. It was offered with constructive intentions, and I believe that it would considerably improve the Bill. I do not accept that there is no evidence of abuse of the system. We have heard that one in four head teachers admit to bending the system in order to cherry-pick. That is not acceptable, and, as the hon. Member for Bury, North said when he referred to that survey in a previous sitting, if one in four admit to it, goodness only knows how many people are doing it without being willing to admit to it.
I do not accept the Minister’s arguments. Most of the criteria could be perfectly well dealt with in the forms that are sent out, by ticking a box. If certain aspects cannot be anonymised in respect of the local authority, they should surely still be anonymised in respect of the school, which is our point. The local authority is a more disinterested and impartial adviser on such matters, and it would be far better to leave administration of the admissions process with it rather than with the schools in question, which have admitted to bending the system.
I am extremely disappointed that the Government have not accepted the new clause. We will press it to a vote, because we believe that it would improve the Bill considerably, put many safeguards in place and increase trust in the system.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 17.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 5

Admission authorities
‘(1) Section 88 of SSFA 1998 (admission authorities and admission agreements) is amended as follows.
(2) at end of subsection (1) insert—
“(c) in relation to schools acquiring foundation status with a foundation, means the local education authority;
(d) in relation to a new Academy, means the local education authority.”'.—[Sarah Teather.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sarah Teather: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
There is considerable evidence from a wide range of studies—I will not go into all of them—that schools that control their own admissions tend to use it to increase social segregation. Despite the Government having made it obligatory to adhere to a code, we are worried that it will be easy to bend and not easy to enforce. My greatest concern is whether a system that requires so many safeguards is really safe in the first place. As the Government have been unwilling to accept our constructive suggestions on improving the admissions process, the new clause would remove the ability of new foundation schools to control their own admissions and be their own admission authority.

Nick Gibb: It seems that the Liberals take every opportunity to undermine the Bill’s objectives. Section 88 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 states that the admission authority of a foundation or voluntary aided school shall be the governing body of that school. Despite that, the new clause provides that the local authority, not the governing body, would be the admission authority for new foundation schools acquiring a foundation and for academies. It would drive a coach and horses through the entire thrust of the Bill, and we shall vote against it if the hon. Lady divides the Committee on the new clause.

Jim Knight: There is little for me to add to the debate. Trust schools will be required to operate their admissions in the same way as any other foundation or voluntary aided school and to comply with all admissions law. We have set out and strengthened the code. There is the ability to appeal to the schools adjudicator from the admission forum, which in turn has increased powers.
As the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said, the new clause would drive a coach and horses through the Bill and what we are trying to achieve. There is no reason why trust schools and academies should have less freedom than other schools that are their own admission authority. Sufficient safeguards are in place and I will table further amendments on safeguards on Report. We want to ensure that admission arrangements are fair and in accordance with the code. I hope that the hon. Lady will ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Sarah Teather: Without the further safeguards that we suggested in the previous proposal, we are not happy to give schools greater freedom to be their own admission authority. For that reason, we will divide the Committee on the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 18.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5

Funding of maintained schools

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 176, in schedule 5, page 170, line 14, leave out
‘from a date determined in accordance with regulations'
and insert
‘15 months prior to the school admitting pupils or, in the case of the temporary governing body not being established for 15 months prior to the admission of pupils, at the point it is established.'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 177, in schedule 5, page 171, line 23, at end insert
‘and such circumstances shall include those cases where a schools forum cannot reach a unanimous decision.'.
No. 170, in schedule 5, page 171, line 29, leave out paragraph 6.

Nick Gibb: The amendment would incorporate a key measure that, as drafted, is left to regulation. Paragraph (4) of the schedule is about a school’s delegated budget, and it amends section 49 of the School Standards Framework Act so that it says:
“A new school shall have a delegated budget from a date determined by regulation.”
The date is clear and the policy is unlikely to change. Paragraph 26.10 of the regulatory impact assessment says that the policy is
“to give temporary Governing Bodies of new schools a delegated budget 15 months prior to the school admitting pupils (or, in the case of the temporary Governing Body not being established15 months prior to admission of pupils, at the point it is established).”
The amendment would include that wording in the Bill.
The wording is included in the draft regulations that the Minister circulated. It is in regulation 2 of the School Finance (England) Regulations 2006. Since the policy is not likely to change to 14 or 16 months, or to any period other than 15 months, which is a reasonable period by which a new school will need to spend the budget prior to opening, it should be in the Bill and not left to regulations.
Amendment No. 177 is a probing amendment. It would make schools forum decisions unanimous to prevent the outvoting of minority representation on the forum. I caution against the trend of passing decision making to unelected bodies, however representative of local interest those unelected bodies purport to be.

Sarah Teather: Is not that the point that I made just five minutes ago, when the hon. Gentleman said that I should give power not to local authorities but to unelected governing bodies with a majority of appointed governors?

Nick Gibb: No, it is not the same thing, because a school is accountable to local people, and if it is not popular among parents, it simply will not attract pupils. Schools forums are different. They are deliberately set up to be quasi-authorities with decision-making powers. In a democracy, it is important that in such bodies, different from schools, elected officials should take those decisions, whether local or national. Elected politicians should not pass the buck to such bodies as a way of avoiding difficult decisions.
Amendment No. 170 is another probing amendment. It would delete paragraph (6), which removes the right of appeal by schools against LEA decisions to take away its delegated budget. I assume that the measure is to deal with schools that cause concern, but it would be helpful if the Minister explained and put on the record the reason for it.

Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman is right. Amendment No. 176 would specify the date by which a local authority must provide the governing body of a new school with a delegated budget share prior to its admitting pupils. At present, legislation requires that such a budget is available only from the date at which a new school admits pupils. We believe that a governing body should have access to a budget from a point at which it starts incurring the expenditure needed to set up a new school.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the amendment would include in the Bill the requirement for the budget share to be made available to the school 15 months prior to the first admission of pupils. That is absolutely in line with our intention, but we believe that there is no need to include it because the illustrative regulations show that we intend to make such provision by way of secondary legislation.
Amendment No. 177 would enable regulation to be made allowing schools forums to approve revisions, as the hon. Gentleman described. Currently, all such revisions have to be approved by either the Secretary of State in the case of England or the National Assembly in the case of Wales. His probing amendment would require unanimous agreement within a schools forum before any such revision could be made.
The Government’s view is that that would place too great a burden on the degree of local consensus necessary to enable local flexibility to operate effectively and that it would be out of step with the ability of forums to decide on a range of other local matters. Extension of the power of schools forums to agree revisions locally must be on the same basis as for powers already devolved to them. When there is local consensus on an issue, but not unanimity, approval for the local authority’s proposals should be granted. Most of us find it difficult to agree unanimously—not least in the Chamber. Ultimately, however, when presented with a proposal from its local authority, a schools forum must abide by the majority view, and when that view supports the proposal, we believe that it should prevail and that neither the Secretary of State nor the National Assembly need be involved.
As the hon. Gentleman said, amendment No. 170 concerns the important situation of a local authority having cause to withdraw the financial delegation right of a governing body. I think that I can give him the assurances he requested. Withdrawal can occur when the governing body has been guilty of a substantial or persistent failure to comply with a delegation requirement or restriction, or has not satisfactorily managed expenditure or appropriation of its delegated budget, or of any sums received in the exercise of its power to provide community facilities. The amendment would retain a right of appeal, as it would leave the current schedule to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 unchanged.
I recognise the need for checks and balances, and there are benefits in giving schools a high degree of financial freedom, but the withdrawal of delegated powers is an ultimate sanction and one that would be exercised very rarely, as I have described. Such cases are complex and are best addressed at a local level. With that reassurance as to the purpose of the schedule and of the proposed changes to it, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.

Nick Gibb: I am happy with the Minister’s assurances andI am grateful for his full and clear response. We share theGovernment’s concern on how to deal with schools that areunderperforming or causing concern, and we therefore agree with thepolicy of withdrawing delegated budgets from such schools and fromgoverning bodies that do not handle their budgets properly. In light ofthat and the Minister’s assurances, I beg to ask leave towithdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave,withdrawn.

Schedule5 agreedto.

Clause 45ordered to stand part of theBill.

NewClause18

Powersof local education authority in respect of supportservices
‘(1) A localeducation authority in England may make such provision as it thinks fitto ensure the availability to schools maintained by it of education andchild-related supportservices.
(2) Services madeavailable under this section mayinclude—
(a) servicesfor children with special educational needs, looked after children andchildren educated otherwise than inschool;
(b) behaviour supportservices;
(c) educationalpsychology services;
(d)curriculum advisory services;and
(e) such other services asthe authority may consider desirable.'. —[Mr.Chaytor.]

Broughtup, and read the First time.

David Chaytor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Secondtime.
The new clauseis straightforward. Both the Bill and the original education WhitePaper published last October place considerable emphasis on the newstrategic role of local authorities as champions of parents and pupils,and as the agents by which standards in schools will be improved.However, nowhere in the Bill is there a description of the precisefunctions of local authorities. New clause 18 would do that. It wouldenable each local authority to decide, as it thinks fit, whether itshould provide facilities for children with special educational needs,behaviour support facilities, educational psychology services, curriculumadvisory services or other support services to schools.
There is an analogy to be drawnwith the original provisions in the White Paper on local authoritiesnot being able to promote new community schools, and the finalagreement that was reached, under which they would be allowed topromote them subject to a quality threshold—exactly the samearguments that applied to the debate on their powers to promotecommunity schools are applicable to their powers to offer the variousadvisory services. I should be interested to hear what the Minister hasto say about incorporating those specific functions of localauthorities into the Bill.

Greg Mulholland: The new clause issimple but important. The Bill does not put enough emphasis onsupporting schools in the areas that it covers, and the provisionaddresses the lack of detail with a comprehensive list of the relevantservices. We support it, because it clarifies and strengthens thestrategic role of local authorities that we think is soimportant.

Jim Knight: Local authorities are central to the vision thatwe set out in the White Paper, as the champions of pupils and parentsand through their role as strategic commissioner and guardian ofstandards, which are all within their new duties to promote choice anddiversity and high standards, and the fulfilment of the potential ofall children in their area. The Education and Skills Committeerecognised that in its report when itsaid:
“It isclear that local authorities will continue to have a vital role in theorganisation of education in their areas. Rather than having their rolereduced, local authorities have significant and even increasedresponsibilities.”
Given that new role, Iunderstand why my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North wants toensure that local authorities have the necessary powers to carry outtheir challenging agenda. It is our opinion that local authoritiesalready have wide powers to do that, including in those areas ofactivity specified in the new clause. They have wide powers to supportschools as they see fit, and to respond effectively to local needs.Those can be found in the Education Act 1996, the Local Government Act2000, the Children Act 2004 and the School Finance (England)Regulations 2006.
Ihope that what I have said is sufficient to reassure my hon. Friend.Although I sympathise with what he is trying to achieve, it is notnecessary and might fetter the ability of local authorities to providesupport services tailored to the individual needs of their localschools and children.

David Chaytor: I am grateful for those reassurances and beg toask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave,withdrawn.

NewClause56

Useof property held in trust for purpose of primaryeducation
‘A local authoritywhich holds property as a trustee for purposes to which the ElementaryEducation Act 1870 applied may apply the capital and income of suchproperty for the purposes of primary education.'. —[Dr.Blackman-Woods.]

Broughtup, and read the Firsttime.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I beg tomove, That the clause be read a Second time.
I tabled the new clause tohighlight the issue of funds accruing under the Elementary EducationAct 1870 that local authorities cannot use for primary education.Apparently, the Act states that local authorities are trustees ofproperties built under the Act, but when those properties are sold thelocal authority cannot reinvest the money in supporting primaryeducation in the local authority area. I know that a number of localauthorities have money in accounts which they would like to use tosupport primary education or new building.
If the Minister cannot acceptthe new clause, I should be grateful if the Department could considerways of dealing with the problem by some othermeans.

Jim Knight: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for explainingwhat lies behind the new clause. It is right that when educational landor assets are sold the proceeds should be reinvested in improvingeducational provision. I know that one or two of my hon. Friends areconcerned about that, and I am happy to explore the problem with myofficials. It would probably help us if my hon. Friend and others whoare concerned about this met us so that we can pursue the matter andsee whether there is a way of resolvingit.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend forthat invitation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw themotion.

Motion andclause, by leave,withdrawn.

Clause46

Meaningof “maintained school” and “elgible forintervention”

Sarah Teather: I beg to move amendment No. 507, in clause 46,page 34, line 22, at endinsert—
‘(1A) In this part“relevant school” means any of the following schools inEngland—
(a) anAcademy,
(b) a city technologycollege, or
(c) a city collegefor the technology of thearts.'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss thefollowing amendments: No. 508, in clause 47, page 34, line 30, after‘school', insert ‘or other relevantschool'.
No. 509, inclause 47, page 35, line 9, after ‘school', insert ‘orother relevantschool'.
No. 510, inclause 48, page 36, line 19, after ‘school', insert ‘orother relevantschool'.
No. 511, inclause 49, page 36, line 36, after ‘school', insert ‘orother relevantschool'.
No. 512, inclause 50, page 37, line 6, after ‘school', insert ‘orother relevantschool'.
No. 513, inclause 51, page 37, line 37, after ‘school', insert ‘orother relevantschool'.
No. 514, inclause 52, page 39, line 6, after ‘school', insert ‘orother relevantschool'.

Sarah Teather: The amendments deal with a recurrent theme oftrying to determine how the Bill applies to all schools, includingacademies and city technology colleges. We know that there are as manyfailing or coasting academies as there are good schools in themaintained sector. When we discussed school improvement partners, theright hon. Member for Redditch suggested that because the Secretary ofState was the maintaining authority for academies, the Secretary ofState would directly appoint SIPs.
We have tabled the amendmentsto probe the Government on how the provisions in clauses 46 and 47would apply to academies and city technology colleges. Will thisrequire another set of amendments to each funding agreement? Is thatnot an extremely complicated way of making the changes? Would it not beeasier simply to accept our amendment? I know that it would go verymuch against the grain for the Government to accept any amendment fromthe Liberal Democrats, but perhaps it would be easier to amend the Billand ensure that the provisions apply to allschools.
Maintainingacademies would mean that, when the 100 new academies open, theDepartment for Education and Skills would be the largest provider of11-to-16 education in the country. I should be interested to see howthe Secretary of State manages to juggle all of those responsibilitiescompared with local authorities and whether the Department willcontinue to berate local authorities for their performance with quitethe enthusiasm that it has done in thepast.

Jim Knight: I recognise the hon. Lady’s motives fortabling the amendments. I will not go through them individually becausethere is not enough time, but they are unnecessary. The types of stateschool in question must be outside the local authority system. Theyhave deliberately been made non-maintained schools, with independentgovernance and sponsor bodies. That independence affords them thefreedoms and flexibilities to raise standards in schools where therehas been prolonged under-achievement. Indeed, academies are improvingthree times faster than the national average at GCSE. We cannot accepta situation wherein, if a non-maintained school is deemed inadequate,the local authority takes over again. That would not only go back onthe fundamental principle of independence, but it would in many cases putthe school back in the hands of an authority that failed to address thesystemic failure of its predecessor school.
The Bill provides fornon-maintained school proprietors—often the controllingtrust—to take action immediately when the school gets aninadequate judgment from Ofsted inspectors. Proprietors are required toproduce a statement of action setting out how they will secureimprovements at the school, build the capacity of the school’smanagement team, involve registered parents in the planning process anddetermine what support the school requires from external partnerorganisations. That requirement mirrors the requirement on localauthorities in respect of maintained schools.
I have asked what mirrors theprocess of warning notices. The academies have a duty to have regard toadvice from the Secretary of State, which effectively provides asimilar mechanism. The Secretary of State can intervene in an academythrough the articles of association and funding agreement held betweenthe Department and the academy trust; he may appoint additionalgovernors, stop funding or close the academy. Those are very similarpowers to those that local authorities have in relation to maintainedschools. I hope, on that basis, that the hon. Lady will withdraw heramendment, but I do not believe that shewill.

Sarah Teather: I thank the Minister for his reply. It seems tous that no directly accountable tier of Government is responsible foracademies, unless the Secretary of State is solely responsible forevery school. As I said, that would require the Secretary of State tobe the largest maintaining authority in England, which seems aridiculous centralisation of responsibilities.
At this stage, I see no pointin pressing the amendment to a Division as the Government are clearlynot going to accept it. We have put it on the record that we areunhappy with the level of responsibility and the relationship betweenlocal authorities. We will consider whether to return to this matter onReport. I beg to ask leave to withdraw theamendment.

Amendment,by leave,withdrawn.

Clause46 ordered to stand part of theBill.

Clause47

Warningnotice by local educationauthority

David Chaytor: I beg to move amendment No. 453, in clause 47,page 34, line 34, leave out ‘fifteenth' and insert‘twentieth'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss thefollowing amendments: No. 454, in clause 47, page 36, line 13, leaveout ‘fifteenth' and insert‘twentieth'.
No.455, in clause 47, page 36, line 15, leave out from ‘means' toend of line 17 and insert
‘any day of the total number of days uponwhich teachers are required to be available for work at the school inaccordance with an order made under section 122 of the Education Act2002'.

David Chaytor: The amendments deal with the compliance period within which schools have to respond to the issuing of a warning notice. The amendments are to do with the practical consequences of the compliance period. Amendments Nos. 453 and 454 would simply change the Bill’s proposal for a compliance period of 15 days to one of 20 days. Although I fully accept that a school that is likely to receive a warning notice from a local authority will not be surprised by it—there will have been a period of many months, and sometimes years, during which the school’s difficulties have been discussed—15 days still seems an extremely short period for a school to decide whether it wishes to challenge the warning notice by appealing to the chief inspector of schools, hence the suggestion for 20 working days rather than 15.
Amendment No. 455 would simply ensure that the ending of the compliance period does not fall within the school holidays. Regardless of the arguments about whether teachers have too long a period of holiday in summer, it serves no practical purpose for the period of notice to fall within that holiday period, or any other school holiday period, if the school is to be in the strongest possible position to respond intelligently to the warning notice issued—either to accept it, or to decide to appeal against it. These three short amendments are intended simply to improve the practicalities of the workings of the warning notice system.

Sarah Teather: We are sympathetic to the amendments; they seem to us to be extremely sensible. Fifteen days is indeed a very short period in which to call what would undoubtedly be an emergency meeting of the governing body to consider all the evidence and to draft any response, and to expect a school to do that during the school holidays would be entirely unreasonable. We encourage the Government to accept this Labour amendment—they might be more willing to agree to a Labour amendment than a Liberal Democrat amendment.

Jim Knight: I fear that the hon. Lady feels victimised. I will not disappoint her by dealing unevenly with her and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North.

Edward Leigh: Will the Minister give way?

Jim Knight: At such an early stage, before I have even started developing my argument, it would be a pleasure to do so.

Edward Leigh: Will the Minister remind me how many amendments he or his predecessor has accepted in this Committee—apart from the Government’s, of course?

Jim Knight: We listen carefully to the arguments that are made, and we have made it clear that there are some issues on which we want to reflect. As ever, we are informed by the wise words of all Committee members, even if sometimes we disagree with them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North seeks to amend clause 47, which is about the need for some schools to address issues on standards more seriously and urgently than they have done in the past. Under the current system, there are some opportunities for delay and procrastination, and I am concerned that the amendments might enable a few contumacious governing bodies to do that.
In the first place, my hon. Friend has argued that20 days for a response to a warning is more reasonable than 15, but 15 days—three working weeks—is not unreasonable since we are not necessarily expecting a full remedy from the school. I emphasise a point made in the draft guidance on the issue from my hon. Friend. The school has 15 working days to comply with the warning notice to the authority’s satisfaction. That may not involve a full rectification of the specific problem since it may not be practicable to do so in that time scale, but it will undoubtedly involve the positive steps towards the solution.
Secondly, in relation to amendment No. 455 my hon. Friend has argued, in effect, that all those actions need to be carried out in term time. I beg to differ given that, in an extreme case, a situation could arise in July that would then have to be shelved until September and then occupy or possibly distract the school for the crucial first four weeks of the autumn term. I am sure that the vast majority of head teachers and education professionals would regard that this issue should have an absolute priority and may need to be dealt with as quickly as possible. The legal onus is in any event on the governing body and not directly on classroom teachers.

David Chaytor: Will the Minister clarify whether in circumstances of extreme urgency—where children were considered to be at risk for health and safety reasons—the local authority would still be empowered to intervene immediately and not have to wait for the end of the 15-day compliance period?

Jim Knight: Yes. In circumstances of extreme emergency we would expect it to do so. Local authorities should be realistic, however. I have listened to my hon. Friend and I suspect that there will be relatively few times when the need for warning emerges just before school holidays. I will consider whether we need to add a sentence or so to the guidance to make that point, particularly in respect of the timing of issuing notices, to ensure that the urgent work that must be carried out is done while the school is sitting. I hope on that basis the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

David Chaytor: I am grateful for those reassurances and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 165, in clause 47, page 35, line 14, leave out from ‘governed' to ‘or' in line 15.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 162, in clause 47, page 35, line 17, at end insert
‘or
(d) that the school fails to deliver improved well-being for all pupils in that school.'.
No. 173, in clause 47, page 35, line 17, at end insert
‘or
(d) that OFSTED has graded the school as no better than satisfactory or poor.'.
No. 174, in clause 47, page 35, line 17, at end insert
‘or
(d) the value added measure of the school's performance lies within the fourth quartile compared to the value added measures of all schools nationally.'.
No. 175, in clause 47, page 35, line 17, at end insert
‘or
(d) that for the years 2006 and 2007 fewer than 25 per cent. of pupils achieve five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C including both English and mathematics, or
(e) that from 2008 onwards fewer than 30 per cent. or more of pupils achieving five or more GCSEs at grades A* to C including both English and mathematics.'.
No. 163, in clause 47, page 36, line 17, at end add—
‘ “well-being”, in relation to a pupil, means his well-being so far as it relates to—
(a) physical and mental health and emotional well-being;
(b) protection from harm and neglect;
(c) education, training and recreation;
(d) the contribution made by him to society; and
(e) social and economic well-being.'.

Nick Gibb: Clause 47 and the subsequent clauses in part 4 of the Bill are important. Many of the provisions are re-enactments of previous legislation but there are new powers designed to tackle failure, underperformance and complacency wherever they exist in our school system. The Conservative party fully supports that objective.
Paragraph 13.7 of the regulatory impact assessment at page 137 says,
“It is unacceptable for any school to provide a low standard of education for its pupils irrespective of location or background of the pupils”.
We agree with that statement 100 per cent., as we do the statement in paragraph 5 of the draft guidance on schools causing concern circulated to members of the Committee on 19 April, which says,
“we know that there are still pupils who are let down by attending poorly performing or failing schools for too long...Our ambition is that every school should be a good school”.
According to the National Audit Office, 980,000 pupils are attending poorly performing schools. Twenty-three per cent of secondary schools are regarded as poorly performing. As of January 2006 there were 232 schools in special measures; of those, 47 primary schools and 43 secondary schools have been in special measures for over 12 months. Of those 232 schools in special measures, only six primary schools and four secondary schools are regarded as making sufficient progress to leave special measures in the near future.
I will come to the measures proposed to deal with those schools when we come to clause 49, but I noticed that in paragraph 4 of the draft guidance the Government highlight the fact that the number of schools that Ofsted has put into special measures has dropped from 515 in 1998 to 242 by the summer of 2005. I think that it is a mistake to turn special measures into a target or a measure of progress in improving schools. There is a huge degree of professional subjectivity in determining when a school should be put into special measures. Turning that into a target will inevitably result in pressure on Ofsted to ease up on schools that ought to be in special measures, to demonstrate that the Government—or the next Government—and Ofsted are delivering better schools.
Clause 47 is about early intervention in schools before they reach the crisis point at which an Ofsted inspection concludes that they require significant improvement or need to be put into special measures. Paragraph 7 of the draft guidance states that the aim is
“to enable earlier action where there is evidence that this is required to ensure underperformance does not become entrenched”.
The Bill re-enacts swathes of previous legislation on local authority powers over schools, but adds a few more provisions. In relation to clause 47, the regulatory impact assessment reads:
“Currently, the existing power for local authorities to warn a school is too complex and limited in scope.”
Paragraph 27 of the draft guidance states:
“There is a strong justification, therefore, for updating LAs’ powers to give formal warnings and use their powers of intervention. Currently the system is somewhat cumbersome, and depends on a restricted definition of performance.”
That is the performance that would trigger the powers under clause 47 to which the amendments are related.
Clause 47(2) gives three broad categories of poor school performance that could trigger a warning notice from a local authority: standards of performance that are unacceptably low and likely to remain so, a breakdown in management, and the safety of pupils being under threat. Taking the first of those categories—the performance of the school—amendment No. 173 would define unacceptably low performance as that for which
“OFSTED has graded the school as no better than satisfactory or poor.”
As members of the Committee know, Ofsted awards four grades to schools under the new inspection arrangements: excellent, good, satisfactory or poor. Satisfactory grades are currently given to about 30 per cent. of schools inspected. As paragraph 13.8 of the regulatory impact assessment says:
“The new Ofsted inspection framework challenges all schools to be “good” or “excellent”. “Satisfactory” is no longer good enough — as that may mean that some children will not achieve their full potential.”
In amendment No. 173, therefore, we seek to include in clause 47(2) the standard that the Government and the Opposition agree is unacceptably low: schools providing no more than a satisfactory standard of education.
Amendment No. 174 would include in clause 47(2) another definition of poor performance: that a school’s value-added measure lies within the fourth quartile of the national league table. The amendment is remarkably similar to the measure of poor performance set out in paragraph 33 of the draft guidance, and I hasten to add that our amendments were tabled some weeks before the guidance was issued. I mention that not to demonstrate prescience but to highlight how much in tune the Opposition are with the Government’s thinking on tackling underperformance in our state schools. When it comes to driving up the quality of education and challenging poor performance, the Government will find full support from those on the Opposition Benches for measures that we believe will raise standards.
Paragraph 33 of the draft guidance gives examples of circumstances that should trigger a warning notice to the governing body of a school. One such example says:
“The school is in the bottom quartile, and probably in the bottom decile, nationally, on one or more key performance indicators. These would focus on contextual value added data which takes into account prior performance, deprivation etc., but could also include, for example, low attainment rates, aggregate point scores and exclusion and truancy data.”
That is not a million miles from our amendment, except that we use the word “fourth” instead of “bottom” and suggest the use of the value-added measure rather than contextual value-added data, which is being piloted and will, I suspect, receive mixed reviews. I recently visited a school in the north of England that is regarded as “excellent” by Ofsted and has a very high value-added score, but would have a score some way lower than 1,000 under the contextual value-added measure. The view of the head teacher is that the basis on which points are added or subtracted for the contextual purpose bears no resemblance to the reality of the advantages and challenges. We need to take great care in plunging headlong into this subjective measure for assessing schools, which will, under the new two-day Ofsted inspection regime, provide the bulk of the data and information informing the inspectors’ view of the school.
The paragraph from which I have just quoted also talks about using exclusion data, which would also be a mistake and would provide a perverse incentive to head teachers not to exclude a pupil, even where he or she should be excluded. That is another example of the care that needs to be taken in using measures to assess schools that can easily be manipulated by those who benefit from the data.
Amendment No. 175 would provide two more definitions of poor performance to the current criteria in clause 47(2), relating to what the Government have termed a “floor target” of performance. Paragraph 13.8 of the regulatory impact assessment says that this is an absolute measure and sets out the targets as follows:
“in all schools at least 25% of pupils will achieve five or more A*-C GCSEs by 2006 and 30% by 2008”.
Compare that with schools like Thomas Telford, where 100 per cent. of the pupils achieve 12 GCSEs at A* to C, including English and Maths, although it takes a banded intake based on national data and 11 per cent. of pupils qualify for free school meals. It is unacceptable that there are so many schools where 75 per cent. or more of pupils do not achieve five good GCSEs. Amendment No. 175 would incorporate in subsection (2) the definition of unacceptably low performance contained in the Government’s “floor target” definition.
If the Government do not accept that the three different, but not mutually exclusive, definitions of performance to be regarded as unacceptably low should not be included in the Bill, will the Minister explain why those definitions have not been included in the draft guidance on schools causing concern? The three definitions that I have provided fall short of schools requiring special measures and significant improvement, which are dealt with in clauses 48 and 49, but not that far short. Given that the purpose of clause 47 is to provide early intervention, before schools reach the point of being put into special measures or requiring significant improvement, it is odd that such indicators, as set out in the amendments, are not included in paragraph 33 of the draft guidance.
I should like to touch on one further point in relation to the clause and the amendments. Paragraph 9.18 of the White Paper says:
“Local authorities have been under a duty since 1998 to help to drive up standards in schools, but we will build on recent reforms to strengthen this role. Ensuring quality does not mean trespassing on school autonomy”.
There is a concern, which I do not share, that the combined effect of the clauses, together with the draft guidance on schools causing concern, would reduce the autonomy that other parts of the Bill are designed to create. My view is that the clauses about which I am talking, for the most part, replicate legislation that is already on the statute book and, where local authority power is increased, that is solely to do with tackling unacceptably low performance. None of us should be prepared to allow schools to languish year after year, providing poor education to our children. Autonomy is about liberating the management and leadership of the school from cloying interference in the day-to-day running of the school. However, that does not mean that the school is unaccountable for its performance; when it fails to provide the quality of education that we expect, it should, in extremis, lose that autonomy until the problem is fixed.
I am concerned about paragraph 30 of the draft guidance, which says:
“Any failure to implement the school workforce agreement, or poor management of the workforce, may contribute to falling standards of performance at a school.”
It is wrong to insert input measures into definitions of unacceptable outcomes. That would lead to a loss of autonomy in the day-to-day running of the school. It is important to keep the definitions of unacceptably low performance tight and focused on the outcomes, and not to use these fairly draconian provisions as a mechanism for implementing and enforcing other priorities.
I turn briefly and finally to amendments Nos. 162 and 163, which incorporate into the definition of unacceptably low performance a situation where the school fails to deliver improved well-being for all pupils. Well-being is defined in amendment No. 163 as the five outcomes in the “Every Child Matters” White Paper and the Children Act 2004: physical and mental health and well-being; protection from harm and neglect; education, training and recreation; the contribution made to society; and social and economic well-being. The two amendments have the support of the Local Government Association, which states:
“During our lobbying on the Children Act, we stressed the importance that schools are part of the duty to co-operate in the delivery of the Act. Schools are organisationally independent of the local authority and as such there could be room for ambiguity about their statutory responsibilities and duties unless they are specified as having that statutory duty. This amendment seeks to rectify this, leaving no room for ambiguity as a result of their independent status.”
On that note, I await the Minister’s response to these six supportive but important amendments.

Greg Mulholland: In my attempt to be extremely brief last time I spoke, I omitted to welcome the new Minister for Schools. I apologise for that, welcome him and look forward to working with him in the course of proceedings on the Bill and in the future. It is the first time that I have had the opportunity to welcome an opposite number on any side.
I also wish to add to the comments made earlier about the previous Minister for Schools, the right hon. Member for Redditch. I think that we all agree that she has dealt with the Committee in an impressive way using a lot of diplomacy and her powers of persuasion, which are skills that she certainly will need in her new job in these interesting times.
Although we can see what the Conservative Front Benchers are trying to do with amendments No. 174 and 175, we feel strongly that they are too rigid as regards the triggers for the process taking place. We feel that it is unfair to create automatic triggers based on league tables, whether value added or results tables. 
If we consider any schools tables, we see that some schools have low value-added scores and high results, and conversely some have high value-added scores and low results, so it becomes a little arbitrary. There is a danger that the amendments would penalise schools that through no fault of their own end up with low value-added scores but not results. They could lead to a school with a middle-class intake, high results and potentially low value-added scores reaching the trigger level. I am sure that that is not what was intended.
The other problem with league tables is the question of what happens if all the schools in the area are performing adequately. That is quite possible, and we have to acknowledge that league tables can be quite arbitrary.
The good thing for Conservative Front Benchers is that we strongly support amendment No. 162, which would be a worthwhile addition to the Bill. It is important to emphasise well-being as a criteria for judging schools, and it is certainly a concern if schools are failing children on that basis.
Although we are sympathetic to the intentions behind amendment No. 163, we feel that the definitions have gone a little too far in terms of what should be included. Schools cannot reasonably be expected to take over the role of the parent for the child’s economic well-being, for example. From that point of view, we feel that amendment No. 162 is helpful but amendment No. 163 is not. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on what would be helpful in defining what well-being could be.

Jim Knight: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton for tabling the amendments, because reading up on them and listening to him and the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland) has been helpful. I shall say at the outset, because we are short of time, that that will make me take another look at the guidance and reflect on the comments, but I shall resist the amendments all the same. The Government have made substantial progress in dealing with failing schools and very low attaining schools. I say to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that we have never set a national target for the number of schools in special measures, but clearly we want there to be as few as possible.
To date, less emphasis has been placed on underperformance, but even in that respect the Government have a good story to tell. The majority of poorly performing schools in the NAO survey are not failing—that is, in Ofsted categories—or very low attaining; they are identified as underperforming or coasting. In essence, those schools are not using their full capacity. Large numbers of pupils will not be reaching their full potential, but many pupils in the schools will be doing well and we must not underestimate their achievements or those of the teachers who are leading them well. That is why quoting the figure of 1 million pupils in poor schools is potentially misleading.

John Hayes: What the report certainly reveals—there is little debate about this—is that that type of underperformance is identified too slowly and that once it is identified schools stay in those circumstances too long. What does the Minister say specifically about those two criticisms?

Jim Knight: That is precisely why we are introducing these measures. Clause 47 has been carefully constructed to give local authorities a power to ensure that schools can be tackled early, so that the current generation of pupils does not have to fail in order for the next generation to be helped. It ensures that we can intervene now for today’s pupils so that they receive the education that they need and deserve. The legislation will link closely to the draft guidance. As I said, I shall have another look at the guidance, given the points that have been made.

Edward Leigh: Will the Minister accept that, with 20,000 schools, there are severe constraints on his ability to impose his will, however beneficial that might be, on failing schools and that the key pressure on failing schools in a system in which the money follows the pupil is that parents take their children away from those schools?

Jim Knight: Clearly, we believe that the exercise of choice is an element, but it is not the only element. I cannot keep a close eye on every school in the country, but the hon. Gentleman will be relieved to know that there are others who assist me and my colleagues. I believe that the architecture that we have, as amended by this legislation, is the right architecture to allow us properly to deliver an improved education for all our children in all their individual circumstances.
On amendment No. 163, schools do have to have regard to the five outcomes in “Every Child Matters”, but they cannot deliver them on their own. They will need to work in partnership with a number of others, including voluntary and community groups and local authorities, so it will be difficult to assess an individual school’s contribution to an outcome. I ask the Committee to resist the amendment on that basis. There is plenty more that I could say on it, but I shall stop there.
On amendments Nos. 173 to 175, we set out in the draft guidance when warning notices should and should not be issued, and I believe that the framework is sufficiently well defined that the amendments are unnecessary. To use the lowest quartile is difficult because by definition that is a relative measure; there will always be a lowest quartile. That is why we talk in the guidance about schools that are “persistently” in the lowest quartile.
On the basis of what I have said, I hope that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton will withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful for that answer. On the basis of the Minister’s assurance that he will reflect on the guidance, I should like to withdraw amendment No.—

It being One o’clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order 83D and the Order of the Committee [28 March], as amended, [this day], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair..

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 11.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 48 to 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6 agreed to.

Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 7 agreed to.

Clauses 59 and 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

It being after One o’clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at Four o’clock.